the Advocats that were imployed against Lauderdale to speak to certain Points that himself proposed but remembers not whether they were formerly mentioned by the Advocats on either side Sir Alexander Gibson in Answer to the first Interrogator Depones That the Earl of Aberdene then Chancellor did behave himself with concern and forwardness in the Process of the Mint more than he observed him to do in other Processes and at the time of the Debate he did several times suggest or propose to the Lord Advocat Grounds and Reasons to be urged against the Earl of Lauderdale and Officers of the Mint 3. The Lords having after the Debate given their Interlocutor anent the Copper-Coyn and of which Interlocutor the Earl of Lauderdale had gotten a Copy from the Clerk The Earl of Aberdene caused some days thereafter alter the Interlocutor and was angry with the Clerk for giving a Copy thereof Sir Alexander Gibson in Answer to the 3d. Interrogator Depones That the first Article of the Libel anent the Copper-Coyn having been Debate the Lords gave their Interlocutor whereby they Repelled the Defences founded upon the King's exoneration and Act of Indemnity and found that the same could not secure the Defenders from being lyable in restitution in quantum sunt locupletiores facti by the profits of the Copper-Coyns more than was contained in the Warrands and the Deponent having written the Interlocutor in these Terms a Copy whereof he now produces written by Sir Patrick Hume's Mans hand as the Deponent conceives the Deponent did immediatly after writing thereof shew the same to the Lord Advocat who was satisfied therewith and then the Deponent gave a Copy of it to the Earl of Lauderdale who had called for it But Sir Patrick Hume who was imployed in that Process for the King's interest having seen the Interlocutor he about two days thereafter told the Deponent that it behoved to be Rectified and these words in quantum sunt locupletiores facti left out And in the Outter-House he gave the Deponent a Note or Memorandum for altering the Interlocutor to be offered to the Earl of Aberdene which Note the Deponent then gave to the said Earl then sitting upon the Bench who having immediatly moved the matter to the Lords the Interlocutor was altered and made in the Terms as it now stands in the Decreet and immediatly thereafter the Process being called and the Earl of Lauderdale's Advocats having Debated something further anent the Point of the Copper-Coyn they founded upon the Interlocutor as it was first written by the Deponent and whereof they had gotten a Copy which Copy they offered to produce whereupon the then Lord Chancellor did sharply rebuke the Deponent for giving the Earl of Lauderdale a Copy of the said Interlocutor but does not remember that he discharged the Deponent to give any more Copies of Interlocutors to the said Earl but the Deponent having received the foresaid Check and the cause being of importance and carried on for the King's interest as the Deponent conceived he resolved to give no more Copies of Interlocutors in that Process until Sir Patrick Hume should first see them The Lord Pitmedden to the 4th Interrogator Depones That he did see the Earl of Aberdene cause alter an Interlocutor Judicially and reproved the Clerk for having given out a Copy of the Interlocutor 4. That the Earl of Aberdene caused Vote John Falconer the Warden's single Deposition to be a sufficient probation against the Earl of Lauderdale albeit it was formerly voted not to be sufficient The Lord Piâ—medden in Answer to the 5th Interrogator Depones That when the Probation came to be Advised the Question was moved whether the Testimony of John Falconer Warden being but a single Witness could be a Probation The Deponent being then to Vote in the Cause desired of the Earl of Aberdene then Chancellor to call the Advocats to Debate that Point how far a single Witness in any case could prove in regard the Deponent was unwilling to give a Vote against the King so long as he had hopes to be cleared and this desire being refused and the Question being put to the Vote the Deponent Voted that a single Testimony did not prove and it was so carried by plurality of Votes After which the Earl of Aberdene did say in these or the like words Is this the way my Lords you guide the King's Affairs this must be represented and the Deponent Answered God bless the King it were happy for the Lords that his Majesty were often among them to behold their Actions And the Earl of Aberdene Answered the Deponent in these or the like words how come you to answer more than the rest And thereafter the Earl of Aberdene did represent to the Lords that this Vote seemed to be contrair to a former Vote whereby the Lords had found my Lord Lauderdale lyable for the faults of the Servants By which the Deponent supposing that the Earl meaned that Interlocutor which was pronounced when the Deponent was Ordinar in the Outer-House He Answered to the Earl that he did not know of that Interlocutor and therefore could say nothing of it And the Lord Hercarss desired the Earl to make his best use of it And the Deponent doth not remember distinctly what followed whether there was a second Interlocutor or Vote or how the Interlocutor was Dictated for the Deponent was a little discomposed with what had past betwixt the Earl of Aberdene and him in the Premisses and so took not notice My Lord Chancellor Perth's Deposition to the 4. Interrogator which is inserted in the Probation of the 3. Article is repeated likewise in this place The Lord Reidfoord in Answer to the 3. Interrogator Depones that he remembers John Falconer the Warden his Oath was Voted not to be a sufficient Probation and that the Earl of Aberdene seemed to be discontent at the Vote and said it was the King's Interest and if the Lords pleased they might AssoilÈie my Lord Lauderdale or the Officers of the Mint but remembers not whether he exprest one or both of them And that thereupon there was an Overture made that it was sufficient against John Falconer himself And the whole Officers being found lyable in solidum it might be looked upon as a sufficient Probation upon that Head and the Deponent thinks it was so carried by plurality of Votes in a second Vote Sir Alexander Gibson to the 4. Interrogator Depones that at the Advising of the Probation some of the Lords having demurred as to that Point if the single Deposition of John Falconer Warden of the Mint was sufficient to prove the quantity of Copper Coyned in the first Journey The Earl of Aberdene did appear displeased and in passion used these expressions to the Lords that this was not his Interest but the King's Cause and if the Lords pleased they might AssoilÈie the Earl of Lauderdale or used words to that purpose And thereafter it being put to
the Vote The Lords found the said Deposition was Probative upon that ground that he being an Officer of the Mint and Deponing upon a matter incumbent to his Office and Charge his Deposition did sufficiently prove against himself and consequently against the Earl of Lauderdale as being lyable for him and the rest insolidâ—m in the terms of a formal Interlocutor and doth not remember that that Point was tune Voted or not nor yet how the Votes ran but that it was carried by plurality of Votes And Depones that upon the Lord Aberdene's uttering the foresaids expressions my Lord Pitmedden said that he wished the King were sometimes present to hear them Adam Chrystie Depones that at the Advising of the Probation some of the Lords said that John Falconer Warden seemed to be Examined before the Commission as a Witness as appeared by the style of his Deposition bearing John Falconer of such an Age Depones And next albeit he were Examined as a Party some of the Lords said it was debateable how far it should operate against another albeit it were Probation against himself And after some Debate amongst the Lords the Earl of Aberdene seemed to be angry and displeased saying My Lords This is not my private concern but the King's Cause If you will for my part you may AssoilÈie the Earl of Lauderdale And afterward it was carried affirmative 5. Albeit by the Interlocutor the Lords found the Earl of Lauderdale only lyable for the rest of the Officers of the Mint in solidum quoad the BulÈeon yet after the Interlocutors were drawn upon the Advising of the Probation the Earl of Aberdene caused apply the Interlocutors as to the BulÈeon to the whole other Articles of the Libel found the Earl of Lauderdale and Lord Maitland lyable in solidum for the whole malversations of the rest of the Officers of the Mint The Duke of Queensberry in Answer to the 2d Interrogator Depones as to the Earl of Aberdene's urging that the Earl of Lauderdale and his Son might be found lyable for the rest of the Officers of the Mint The Deponent doth not remember the Argument he made use of to that purpose The Lord Reidfoord in Answer to the 2d Interrogator Depones that he thought my Lord Aberdene earnest to have every one of the Officers of the Mint found lyable in solidum Sir Alexander Gibson in Answer to the first Interrogator Depones That the time of the Advising the Earl of Aberdene was of the opinion and did urge that the Earl of Lauderdale should be found lyable in solidum for the other Officers of the Mint To the 4 5 6 and 7. special Interrogators Depones that after the Deponent had drawn the Interlocutor given upon Advising the Probation Sir Patrick Hume did draw another Draught of the Interlocutor in more ample terms and in special as to the several Officers of the Mint their respective malversations and therein the Interlocutor which was given upon debate as to the second Article anent the BulÈeon finding the general Libel in solidum for the rest of the Officers of the Mint is applyed and repeated as to all the Articles of the Libel relating to the Mint Which Interlocutor Sir Patrick did shew to the Earl of Aberdene the Deponent being present And after the same was read the Deponent told he was not clear to Extract the Decreet in the terms of the Interlocutor unless the same were brought to the Lords and considered Whereupon the Earl of Aberdene ordained the Deponent to Transcribe that Interlocutor and to bring it in to be read before the Lords the next day which the Deponent did accordingly And the Interlocutor being read the Lords did acquiesce thereto and the Decreet was Extracted conform to the samen The King declared he would not have the Lord Maitland insisted against whereupon my Lord Maitland Compeared at the Bar and declared he could not Defend and discharged his Advocats to Defend and gave in a written Declaration and Submission to that purpose Yet notwithstanding he is made Compearing and no notice is taken of his Declaration and refusal to Defend but is Decerned in solidum My Lord Chancellor Perth in his Answer to the 6. Interrogator Depones That in the Council held at Windsor where were present beside the Counsellors of the Scots Nation Prince Rupert the Marquess of Hallifax the Duke of Ormond the Earl of Sunderland the now Lord Thesaurer of England c. The late King of ever blessed memory did declare that what-ever faults might be in the Family of Lauderdale or amongst the Officers of the Mint he thought my Lord Maitland was not chargeable with any of them The Earl of Belcarras in his Answer to the first Interrogator Depones That he was in a Scots Council at Windsor where the late King's Majesty after hearing the report of the Commission anent the Mint said That my Lord Maitland to whom his Majesty had spoken was but a young Man and had been much out of the Countrey and therefore thought he had little meddling in that Affair and his Majesty said he thought he should not be meddled with and that after some debate in the Council about that matter the Deponent thought it was his Majesties resolution that my Lord Maitland should not be meddled with in that Affair The Bishop of Edinburgh in Answer to the first Interrogator Depones that the late King's Majesty in a Scots Council held at Windsor Castle the 24. of August 1682. After hearing the report of the Commissioo anent the Mint read and considered and that some in that Council had moved that the Lord Maitland might be turned out of his Office of being General of the Mint al 's well as the other Officers His Majesty did say that my Lord Maitland could not be guilty of any malversations in his trust of the Mint since his Majesty knew that for the most part he was out of the Kingdom by his Majesties own allowance and that he was very young So if when at home any errors were committed by him they were to be imputed to his Father under whose conduct he was and therefore his Majesty declared he would not suffer my Lord Maitland to be meddled with or touched in that Process All which his Majesty spoke with a great deal of zeal and concern for the Lord Maitland's interest The Viscount of Tarbat in Answer to the 7. Interrogator Depones that in the Council at Windsor the Deponent heard the late King say he would not have the Lord Maitland pursued for the Mint or some words to that purpose But what the Deponent heard his Majesty say in private the Deponent conceives he is not bound to declare it The Lord Forret in Answer to the 6. Interrogator Depones that the Lord Maitland did appear before the Lords and declared in their presence that he would not Defend in the Mint-Process and discharged his Advocats to compear therein for him and gave
in a Declaration to that purpose in Writ The Lord Collingtoun in Answer to the 6 Interrogator Depones that the Lord Maitland did compear before the Lords and declared that he would not Defend in that Process of the Mint nor allow Advocats to defend for him but referred himself to the King The Lord Reidfoord in Answer to the 6. Interrogator Depones that the Lord Maitland did appear and declare that he would not defend in the Mint-Process nor allow appearance for him against his Majesty and believes he did offer a Declaration or Submission or some Writ to that purpose but it was refused at that time But doth not remember whether the Lords opinion was asked or not The Lord Salin to the 6. Depones that the Lord Maitland did compear at the Bar and did insinuat by discourse to the Lords his own innocency and little accession to the mismanagment of the Mint and that his late Majesty did very well understand it and declared he would not defend in that Process but be silent and absent Sir Alexander Gibson to the 2. Interrogator Depones that when the day of my Lord Maitlands compearance was come he being out of the Countrey the time of the Citation of the rest of the Defenders and he being called he did declare in presence of the Lords that he would not defend in that Process nor allow Advocats to appear or defend for him but submitted himself to the King's Majesty and gave in a Declaration Subscribed by him to that purpose which is in the Deponents hands But it was found by Interlocutor that the Lords could not receive this Submission from the Lord Maitland and that he being conjoyned with his Father in the Commission the Process behoved also to go on against him and remembers not whether this Interlocutor was pronounced before the Parties and Advocats were removed or after And in respect of that Interlocutor the Deponent conceived he could not insert the Lord Maitland his Subscribed Declaration in the Decreet To the additional Interrogator Depones that he had no express warrand from the Earl of Aberdene to mark my Lord Maitland compearing nor give out he Decreet against him as compearing but Depones that he having Written the Interlocutor as to the Lord Maitland according as it was pronounced viz. That the Lords could not receive a Submission from the Lord Maitland but being conjoyned with his Father in the Commission the Process must also go on against him And in regard he declined to propone any defences in the Cause the Lords admitted the Libel to Probation against him And the Act being Scrolled accordingly Sir Patrick Home who had the managing of the Process did score out these words In regard he declines to propone any Defences in the Cause and caused Extract the Act against my Lord Maitland compearing as will appear by the Interlocutor and Scroll of the Act which are lying in Process whereunto the Deponent gave way considering the trust that Sir Patrick Home had in that Process Mr. James Dalrymple in Answer to the 6. Interrogator Depones my Lord Maitland did compear and made a gentile and discreet Discourse in the terms of the Interrogator remembers not if he gave it in in Writ or not but remembers he said he would make no Defence nor would allow Advocats to compear for him 7. The Probation was not Voted severally in relation to every Article but joyntly whether the Articles were proven or not Sir Alexander Gibson in Answer to the 7. Interrogator Depones that at the Advising of the Cause the Probation was pointed and read as to every Article severally but to the best of the Deponents memory there were only two Votes one anent the Probation of the quantity of the Copper Coyned in the first Journey and the other after the reading of all the Probation as to the rest of the Articles Adam Chrystie before the end of his Deposition Depones that after the Voting of John Falconer the Wardens Deposition the remanent Articles of the Libel severally one by one and the Probation relative to every one of them was read in Praesentia and in the close they were all Voted together as the Interlocutor was Written thereupon So that to the Deponents best memory there was only two distinct Votes in Advising all the Probation 8. After the Session was up the Earl of Aberdene would have an Interlocutor added to the Decreet which was not at all moved to the Lords viz. That the Officers of the Mint should be remitted by his Majesty to the Lords of the Privy Council or Justiciary to be punished Sir Alexander Gibson to the 1st and 2d of the 7. particular Interrogators Depones that after the Decreet was extended and ready to be Subscribed Sir Patrick Home told the Deponent that there was a Conclusion in the Libel whereupon no Interlocutor was given viz. That the Officers of the Mint be remitted to the Lords of Privy Council or Justitiary to be punished according to Law for their malversing and did desire the Deponent to insert this following Clause in the Decreet viz. As to that Conclusion of the Libel whereby his Majesties Advocat craves that the late Officers of the Mint having committed such manifest and gross Acts of malversation in relation to the Mint and their respective Offices they ought to be remitted to the Lords of Privy Council or Lords of Justiciary to be otherways punished according to Law The Lords superceded to give Answer thereto but remits the same to the King that his Majesty may do therein and give further order thereanent as he in his Royal Wisdom shall think fit and expedient And the Deponent having refused to insert that Clause in regard he had no warrand for it Sir Patrick told him that the Lord Chancellor expected it should be done and desired the Deponent to speak to him thereanent And the Deponent having gone accordingly to the Earl of Aberdene told him that Sir Patrick had desired him to insert the foresaid Clause in the Decreet which he conceived he could not warrantably do seing there was no Interlocutor for it And the Earl said to the Deponent that there being such a Concluson in the Summons it was necessary there should be an Answer given thereto and said there was no hazard for the Deponent to insert the said Clause there being nothing concluded thereby against the Defenders And the Deponent Answered he was not clear to do the same and the Deponent thinking it would not have been further prest and having some business in the Country went out of Town resolving to return at night But about 3 or 4 hours thereafter in the same day being a Saturday he received a Letter from a Servant in the Deponents Chamber who wrote the Decreet shewing him that it was still insisted in that the said Clause might be insert in the Decreet and that there was to be a meeting of the Lords of Session to that effect